Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Defense minister tells how he awoke in Sderot to sound of Red Dawn alert system before hearing powerful explosion; says, ‘I am a man of peace, but no one should delude themselves that we will make allowances to Qassam launchers

A few hours after one of the four Qassam rockets landed in Sderot, Defense Minister Amir Peretz visited the home struck by the rocket and inspected the damage. Peretz, a Sderot resident, needed to walk only a few dozen meters from his home, which was not far from the home hit by the Qassam.

"I was supposed to go this morning to a security cabinet meeting and 10 minutes before I woke up the Red Dawn alert system went off, followed by a loud explosion," Peretz said.

"Unfortunately this is not the first time that a Qassam rocket has fallen near my house and I know Moti Ashkenazi (home owner who's walls were hit by rocket) well. He is a good friend of ours and the first thing I did was call him immediately and ask if he and Tziona were alright. Moti's family is well known in Sderot; we are proud of them. They give us strength," said Peretz.

Ashkenazi himself said the rocket that landed in the courtyard of his house could have caused a major disaster. "Very luckily the rocket hit a concrete strip in the ceiling, which slowed it down a bit," he said Wednesday morning. "I heard the explosion and flew out of bed. Pieces of the ceiling fell on me. There was a big miracle here because one of the pieces of shrapnel from the rocket hit the gas tank in the house. I'm still trying to take in all that has happened to us here this morning," he said.

Ashkenazi's wife had left earlier for work, while his children stayed in Tel Aviv overnight.

A total of four rockets landed in the western Negev Wednesday morning. Two of them hit homes in Sderot, a third hit a different community in the area, and a fourth landed in open territory. There were no injuries in the attacks. Peretz emphasized that, as in the start of the week, the IDF would continue its operations against Qassam rocket launchers from northern Gaza.

'I'm a man of peace, but we'll make no allowances for rocket launchers'

"I am a man of peace, but no one should delude themselves that we will make allowances to Qassam launchers," he said. "There are operations aimed at harming their ability to fire Qassams. After all, terror also harms Palestinians," he said.

"I hope that the cut in the defense budget won't harm our ability to defend the communities," Peretz added.

The defense minister was received warmly in his own neighborhood, and Peretz occasionally evaded his guards to speak with his friends. The residents asked him to order the army to act with more determination against the rocket launchers. "We think there is only one thing that can be done to stop these rockets, and that is to erase the territories from they are being fired," one local resident said.

Education Minister Yuli Tamir and several religious Zionist rabbis were expected to meet on Wednesday to discuss a school curriculum addressing Israel's disengagement from the Gaza Strip and its ramifications for the religious Zionist population, Israel Radio reported.

and

Education Minister Yuli Tamir met with religious Zionist rabbis on Wednesday, asking them to help in the design of an educational program that would teach students of the process and effects of the 2005 disengagement from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria.

She believed that such a program could help students face Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's realignment plan, according to Israel Radio.

She added that an educational citizenship program in the coming year would help students understand the democratic processes involved in an evacuation.

If she is committed to true liberal education policies, the kids would be instructed on ways of opposing and demonstrating against the program, no?

In the West Bank, masked Palestinian gunmen killed a Palestinian man and woman they suspected of supplying information to Israel that led to the deaths of three Palestinian militants, including the woman's husband.

The man, Jafal Abu Tzrur, was shot in the street in front of a large crowd in Nablus, and the woman, Odad Abu Mustafa, was also gunned down in Nablus, in the courtyard of Rafidia Hospital. She was shot by her brother, The Associated Press reported, citing witnesses.

According to the gunmen from Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades, the two were having an affair, and they provided information to the Israeli security forces that helped them track down and kill Ms. Mustafa's husband and two fellow militants in March. Ms. Mustafa was the mother of four, according to neighbors.

Besides the improper form of justice, which should be obvious to you, it might be interesting to know that she was 27 and he was 22. Death that way is a bit harsh in the circumstances.

French police opened an investigation Monday after suspected members of a black extremist group marched through a Jewish quarter in central Paris shouting anti-Semitic slogans at the weekend.

Shoppers in the historic Marais neighbourhood, one of the busiest districts in the Jewish area of Paris, were left in shock early Sunday evening after a group of black extremists terrorised community members with anti-Semitic verbal abuse.

More than 20 men claiming to be members of the Tribu-Ka anti-white group walked up and down the crowded Rue des Rosiers shouting at the families and youths in the area. Jewish groups want the extremist group to be banned.

The French Office of Vigilance against anti-Semitism (BNCVA) said in a statement the gang was “performing Nazi salutes, looking for a fight with the neighbourhood's Jews, threatening and intimidating them".

BNCVA said the gang members were "performing Nazi salutes, looking for a fight with the neighbourhood's Jews, threatening and intimidating them".

"We are in contact with the interior ministry and the police department on the question," the head of the Representative Council of French Jewish Institutions (CRIF), Roger Cukierman, told AFP.

“They screamed out 'Death to Jews!'” one witness, who would only give his name as Julien, told EJP.

“They told us they weren’t Arabs and that they would kasherise us,” said a second witness, Stephan, a fifty-year-old butcher from the Panzer delicatessen.

“I’ve never been more scared in my life,” book-salesman David R added.

Police quickly broke up the march, running identity checks on 19 people none of whom were armed. Security has been stepped up in the area. Since they committed no apparent offence, police let the men go.

Jewish-black tension

There has been growing tension between the Jewish community and an extremist fringe of black youth as a result of what many consider to be the provocative attitude of young Jewish members of the right wing Betar and Jewish Defence League groups who try to physically confront anti-Semitism.

Tribu-Ka claims that young Jews attacked a black man during the February demonstration in memory of Ilan Halimi, the young French Jew who was kidnapped and killed by the Barbarians’ gang, whose leader and several members were black.

However witnesses and dozens of black people who participated in the demonstration along with the Jewish community have denied this.

Tribu-Ka, an organisation created in December 2004 is opposed to all contacts between blacks and non-blacks.

In February 2005 a dozen young men and women claiming to be part of the Tribu-Ka infiltrated a meeting of the Jewish-black friendship association and vigorously advised the Jews to cease all contacts with their “Khemite brothers”.

They also accused the Jews of being the descendants of slave-traders, an accusation repeated by controversial comic Dieudonne Mbala Mbala, who is one of Tribu-Ka see as an inspiration.

Growing concern

Tribu-Ka’s leader is Kemi Seba, formerly known as Stellio Gilles Robert, a former member of Nation of Islam in Paris who has previously been indicted for racist incitement.

Since Tribu-Ka was formed, tensions between its members and the Jewish community has been increasing, a specially with the members of Betar and the JDL.

Ten days earlier Tribu-Ka penetrated into a sports club used by the JDL and Betar and defied the Jews who were practicing Krav Maga, the Israeli martial art. When the young men answered they weren’t part of the Jewish organisations, the thugs told them to tell JDL and Betar that they were looking for them.

On its internet site the group wrote it was searching for the JDL and Betar.

When they walked up Rue des Rosiers on Sunday, the Tribu-Ka members said they wanted to confront militants from both groups who are known to be based in the Jewish Marais neighbourhood.

According to witnesses, the Jews failed to reply and forced passers-by into shops.

BNCVA said the gang was armed with sticks and baseball bats -- though this was denied both by police and by independent witnesses.

"They were all tough guys, wearing black bandannas -- it was really organised, they had a camera and were filming everybody," one witness told Agence France Presse under cover of anonymity.

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

David Brog is author of Standing with Israel: Why Christians Support the Jewish State. A former chief of staff to Pennsylvania Republican senator Arlen Specter, Brog explains that “the evangelical Christians who support Israel today are nothing less than the theological heirs of the righteous Gentiles who sought to save Jews from the Holocaust.”

Brog recently discussed the book with National Review Online editor Kathryn Lopez.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: Which Christians in the U.S. are most Zionist and why?

David Brog: The evangelicals. No contest. Their Zionism comes directly from their theology. But, as opposed to what most people think, this theology is driven by the biblical promises of the Book of Genesis, not the biblical prophecies of the Book of Revelations.

Lopez: Was there an event that made this alliance stronger? Has it always been under the radar?

Brog: Evangelical Christians largely shunned politics until the late 1970s, when Jerry Falwell created the Moral Majority and led them back onto the political playing field. Israel was among the priorities of the Christian Right from the start. In fact, when Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority he made support for Israel one of the group’s four organizing principles along with the issue of abortion, traditional marriage, and a strong U.S. defense.

While Israel was always important to evangelicals, a recent event did make Israel even more of a priority. On September 11, 2001, evangelicals recognized along with many other Americans that radical Islam was the greatest threat facing our country and that we were in a war with its proponents. And in this war, Israel is seen as an ally and as the first line of defense of Judeo-Christian civilization. Support for this embattled ally has moved to center stage.

Brog: Evangelicals who support Israel most certainly do want to convert people. Evangelicals who don’t support Israel also want to convert people. The mission of sharing the “good news” of Jesus Christ is central to being an evangelical. But it is important to note that this is not about converting just the Jews—Christians want to share their faith with Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and their Christian friends and neighbors who have yet to be born again.

The important question is this: Is evangelical support for Israel merely a tool in the effort to convert the Jews? Is this merely some scheme to soften the Jews up so that they can better sell Jesus to them? And the answer to this question is absolutely not.

If anything, the opposite it true. I and others who have worked with Christians in support of Israel all report that no one has ever tried to convert us. In fact, Christians who support Israel tend to know more Jews and to understand their sensitivities better than Christians who do not. Thus, they have learned that Jews find “Jesus talk” offensive, and they tend to leave it out of the dialogue.

- - -

Lopez: Beyond politics, what good stuff do Christian Zionists do for Israel?

Brog: They do lots of good stuff. For starters, Christians give millions of dollars to Israel and Jewish causes every year. These funds support a variety of missions, including:

The cost of transporting poor Jews from the former Soviet Union, Argentina and Ethiopia to live in Israel.Supporting poor Jews who stay behind in these countries. Supporting disadvantaged Jews and terror victims in IsraelBeyond giving money, Christians also volunteer their time. Christian Zionists can be found throughout the former Soviet Union, teaching Jews about the opportunities and assistance available to them in Israel. Many Christian volunteers also go to Israel, where they contribute to Israeli society by operating food banks, homeless shelters, and providing health and repair services to those in need.

Lopez: How widespread is a Jewish suspicion of Christian Zionists?

Brog: As widespread as falafel stands in Tel Aviv. Jews tend not to know very much about Christian theology or Christian history. As a result, they tend to lump all Christians together and hold them equally responsible for the anti-Semitic atrocities committed by Christians in the past. If more Jews understood the profound theological differences between evangelical Christians in America today and the Christians of Europe in prior centuries, I think they would be more open to an alliance.

- - -

Lopez: Whom do you want to read your book?

Brog: I want Jews to read my book so that they will get over their fears of evangelicals and embrace our friends. I want Christians to read my book so that they will understand both the imperatives of supporting Israel and the wary reaction they will receive from the Jewish community. And I want people who are interested in politics and foreign policy to read my book so that they can better comprehend the birth pangs of what in time will be a very important alliance.

Kimberly Dozier is CBS News correspondent who has been reporting on the war in Iraq for nearly three years.

Prior to that, she was the chief correspondent for WCBS-TV New York’s Middle East bureau in Jerusalem (February 2002-August 2003), from where she covered the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the war in Iraq.

"....The Zaatara checkpoint, where I was waiting, is one of dozens inside the occupied Palestinian territories, restricting the movement of people and goods....I looked at the two young soldiers arrogantly manning the checkpoint, with dozens of people awaiting a sign from them....

"[A soldier] shouted at a woman holding a crying baby. He ordered her to dump her bag's contents on the ground.....While we waited in a long queue under searing heat, Israeli settlers in air-conditioned vehicles bypassed the checkpoint in their special lane.

"Israel says these measures are vital to stop suicide bombers from flooding into Israeli cities to terrorize the civilian population. But I can't imagine a suicide bomber standing in a long line deep inside the West Bank, waiting for soldiers to check his ID and car. Determined people can always travel through the hills, avoiding the checkposts."

- Fareed Tamallah, identified as a Palestinian "peace activist," writing in a May 25, 2006, New York Times Op-ed.

"This morning, IDF forces arrested a suicide bomber and an aide who were apparently on their way to a terrorist strike within Israel. The two were caught at a surprise checkpoint put up near Nablus....

"Yesterday, as a result of intelligence passed [to the army] by the General Security Service, many checkpoints were put up in the Nablus area. This morning a battalion of the Haruv Brigade spotted the bomber and his aide north of Nablus. The two threw a bag with the bomb in it out the window of their car and tried unsuccessfully to escape. The bag, in which there was a powerful explosive charge, was exploded by sappers of the security forces."

- MSN Internet news, May 29, 2006

I can assure you that the above news item did not appear in today's May 30 Times. Why should The Times have published it? It was an incident, after all, in which no one was killed or even wounded. Dozens of Israeli lives may have been saved because of it, but surely one can't expect The Times to run a story every time a life isn't lost.

But one can expect even The Times to refrain from publishing blatant anti-Israel idiocy, not only in its own news and feature articles, but in its op-eds that are written by others, too.

Presumably, The Times has one or more op-ed editors. What exactly went through such an editor's mind when he read Fareed Taamallah's statement that, "I can't imagine a suicide bomber standing in a long line deep inside the West Bank, waiting for soldiers to check his ID and car." Was the editor fast asleep? Why didn't he or she get on the phone to Mr. Taamallah at once and say:

"Listen, this sentence of yours is absurd. Of course a suicide bomber would be unlikely to stand in a long line deep inside the West Bank waiting to be checked by Israeli soldiers. That's one reason the checkpoints are there. If they weren't, what would keep suicide bombers from driving merrily along main highways instead of having to seek out arduous (and, because of Israel's security fence, increasingly impossible) alternatives? Do me a favor and rewrite those words, please."

In fact, Mr. Taamallah's entire op-ed is absurd. Take the poor woman with the baby, the contents of whose bag were dumped on the ground. One sympathizes with her. There should have been a table to dump them on, and one hopes the Israeli army will acquire some for its checkpoints.

But just suppose for a moment that a nice soldier - a most non-arrogant soldier - had felt sorry for the woman and waved her on without emptying her bag. And suppose it soon became known that at Checkpoint X there are nice Israeli soldiers who do such things. How long does Mr. Taamallah - how long does The New York Times - think it would take before a suicide bomber approached such a woman and persuaded her to stick his bomb in her bag? Would our bomber mind "standing in a long line deep inside the West Bank" then?

Indeed, Palestinian women have been caught at checkpoints with bombs in their bags and clothing, just as have Palestinian schoolchildren. The next time Mr. Taamallah sees a schoolchild with tears in its eyes because a checkpoint has made it late for school, he might think of that.

And because the woman with the baby and the child on its way to school are checked thoroughly at checkpoints, and because this takes a long time, and long lines of cars back up on major roads that have good visibility, a suicide bomber who spots such a line ahead of him has plenty of time to turn around and try a back way. And it is precisely when he does that he can be caught at a surprise checkpoint like the one near Nablus yesterday, when coming around a bend in a narrow road he suddenly runs into a barrier that is seen by him when it is already too late.

The checkpoints are a major source of frustration and indignity to the West Bank's Palestinians and it is understandable that they are resented and hated. It is even understandable that Fareed Taamallah - who, "peace activist" that he may or may not be, clearly doesn't lose any sleep at night over dead Israelis - should seek to denounce them in a less than honest manner. But The Times owes its readers more. The purpose of the checkpoints is to save Israeli lives, not to embitter Palestinian ones, even if they end up doing both. Surely that's part of all the news that's fit to print.

Italian commercial television network Mediaset is in Jordan shooting a two-part romantic comedy on the life of Jesus, the Royal Film Commission said.

"The Holy Family", starring newcomer Brando Pacitto as Jesus, Alessandro Gassman as Joseph and Ana Caterina Morariu as Mary, is being directed by Italy's Raffaele Mertes, who has made several religious productions.

The two-part TV film "seeks to narrate the human side and the inter-relationships between Joseph, Mary and Jesus, starting with the rough, gruff but good-hearted 40-year-old carpenter who falls in love with a girl many years his junior," Jordan's Royal Film Commission said.

"The work is a romantic comedy centered on the great love story between Mary and Joseph," it added.

Celebrated Italian set designer Gianni Quaranta, who won the 1986 Academy Award for best art direction for the Hollywood blockbuster "A Room With A View", is designing the production.

In cooperation with Jordan's Royal Film Commission, the film is being shot at Petra, the ancient Nabatean city in southern Jordan famous for its rose-red temples hewn from the rock.

Over the years Jordan's natural and archeological wealth has also served as a backdrop for many Hollywood productions, among them the all-time classic "Lawrence of Arabia".

Washington, D.C. (PRWEB) May 30, 2006 -- In an important, unprecedented initiative, four Senators and four Congressmen, representing both political parties, have introduced landmark Resolutions on Middle East refugees in the United States Senate and in the House of Representatives.

These far-reaching Resolutions urge the President to ensure that in all international forums, when the issue of ‘Middle East refugees is discussed, representatives of the United States should ensure: “That any explicit reference to Palestinian refugees is matched by a similar explicit reference to Jewish and other refugees, as a matter of law and equity.”

The Resolutions will be the strongest declarations adopted by the U.S.Congress, acknowledging the rights of Jewish and others refugees that were forced to flee Arab countries.

Currently, when the issue of refugees is raised within the context of the Middle East at the United Nations or elsewhere, the reference is only to Palestinian refugees, not former Jewish refugees from Arab countries. However, there were two major population movements that occurred during years of Middle East turmoil – Arabs and Jews. Both groups were determined to be bona fide refugees under international law. In fact, there were more former Jewish refugees uprooted from Arab countries (over 850,000) than there were Palestinians who became refugees in 1948. (UN estimate: 726,000)

“For any Middle East peace to be durable and enduring, it must address all outstanding issues, including the legitimate rights of all victims of the Arab-Israeli conflict. This resolution puts this critical issue on the international agenda,” said Senator Richard Durbin.

Congressman Tom Lantos stated: “Compensation for refugees displaced by wars in the Middle East and their aftermath has long been a cornerstone of Middle East peace-making. This principle must apply to all refugees, Jewish as well as Palestinian. Two U.S. Presidents -- Carter and Clinton -- have recognized and courageously insisted on this principle. It is time for the international community to do so as well.”

“It would be constitute an injustice were the United States to recognize rights for one victim population - Palestinian refugees - without recognizing equal rights former Jewish refugees from Arab countries” said S. Daniel Abraham, Founding Chairman of Justice for Jews from Arab countries. “Both were victims of the very same Middle East conflict and the rights of Jewish refugees must be addressed”.

Thomas L. Friedman writes that if Yasir Arafat had ''ever adopted the nonviolence of Gandhi,'' he would have had his Palestinian state -- ''Israel's reckless settlements notwithstanding'' (''Footprints in the Sand,'' column, Nov. 7). Mr. Friedman places the cart before the horse.

Yasir Arafat adopted the path of terror and violence years before any Jewish community had been built in the disputed territories, indeed, years before those territories came under Israeli administration in 1967.

Yossi Beilin and Yasir Abed Rabbo, in seeking to justify their virtual diplomatic negotiating exercise, point to ''hard-liners in Israel'' who ''have criticized the details of the agreement'' (''An Accord to Remember,'' Op-Ed, Dec. 1).

The portrayal of hard-liners is self-serving. The scathing criticism of the method and the results of their efforts is across the board, from left to right in Israel.

Its impracticability, its yielding to terror, its dissolving of Israel's raison d'être, its vacating of crucial security needs and the forced abandonment of portions of the Jewish people's historic homeland without reciprocal demands on the Arab population all combine to nullify the relevance of the festival in Geneva.

As a bona-fide member of what Thomas L. Friedman terms ''the lunatic Israeli settler movement,'' I find his strident tone illogical (''Fathers and Sons,'' column, May 11).

Unless Israel completely disengages itself from the Arab population living in the country's pre-1967 borders, in the future, Israel may still yet be faced with binationalism.

With Israel existing in more restricted borders, that would invite Arab aggression, as in 1967, when Israel had not one Jewish community in the disputed areas of Judea and Samaria. If ''settlements'' did not exist then, why should dismantling the communities solve anything today? Will Arab enmity be less?

Former President Bill Clinton's defense of his pardon of Marc Rich and others (Op-Ed, Feb. 18) is admirable. However, the reasons he provides were applicable, in part, to at least one other person whom the last four Israeli prime ministers requested Mr. Clinton to pardon. In addition, many American Jewish leaders, non-Jewish personalities and people from other countries pleaded with Mr. Clinton in his favor.

That person is Jonathan Pollard.

Mr. Clinton, regardless of the difficulties he faces over the Rich pardon, owes these people a rational explanation of why Mr. Pollard did not merit a reprieve from his sentence of life imprisonment.

How fortunate that we were permitted an insight into the struggles and doubts of a leader of the American Jewish community. How unfortunate that the Jews on the receiving end of rocks, slingshot-propelled missiles, fire bombs, occasional grenades, et al. are not afforded a parallel opportunity to present their feelings and thoughts. Your readers should know that there is another story and other diary entries.

Goldstein said he understood the need for dialogue and understanding between the government and the settlers. "This is a government that is determined to evacuate, and therefore there is a need to save what we can," he said, adding that he had advised his fellow settlers not to cause Olmert to hate them.

"In his final days [as prime minister], Arik Sharon hated us," Goldstein said. "Olmert doesn't hate us yet. In his talks with us, he shows warmth and understanding."

And by the way, who does he think helped Arik hate us if not Eyal Arad, a PR whizz Goldstein has hired.

Monday, May 29, 2006

Iran has equipped the Lebanese-based radical Islamic group Hezbollah with long-range rockets capable of hitting targets up to 200 kilometers away, putting all of Israel's major urban centers - including the southern city of Be'er Sheva - within striking distance.

The solid-fuel rockets lack an independent guidance system and their accuracy is questionable but they can still cause considerable damage.

According to intelligence estimates, the rockets are meant to strike non-specific areas, such as towns and cities, and carry a warhead estimated to weigh 600 kilograms. This latest development doubles the range of weapons previously in Hezbollah's arsenal.

Gee, I hate to disappoint all you out there but my guess is that Iran is going to supply Hezbollah with little suitcase A-bombs and they'll approach Tel Aviv by boat from the sea.

In our humble opinion, dear reader, political discourse in this country continues to degenerate apace. It seems to us that, just as the impeachment of President Clinton got many conservatives overly worked up, the Iraq War has led sundry liberals to espouse arguments completely unhinged from reality...

...Just the other day, for instance, we checked out AfterDowningStreet.org, a "website" dedicated to far-Left muckraking. On said "website," you'll find a charming piece by one Bill Perry, with the delightful title "Veterans Surround Richard Perle, Demand Accountability for His Role in Launching Illegal War." As its delightful title suggests, the "post" discusses a run-in between the neoconservative intellectual Richard Perle and a gaggle of anti-war protestors. And we think it amply demonstrates the way in which the Iraq War has driven some folks batty.

It begins as follows:

Here's 8 great shots I took, with a disposable camera, of Neo-Con Architect of the Iraq war, Richard Perle, and our Iraq Veterans Against the War Heroes & Sheroes, joined by our Gold Star Families "Matriots".

Okay, so Mr. Perry has some strange ideas about capitalization. And no reasonable person would countenance the neologism "Sheroes." But so what?

Well, take a look at this little bit:

...we surrounded the Adolf Eichman [sic] of the Bush Administration [i.e., Mr. Perle], and had BIG FUN humiliating the MURDERER!

Oh, dear. First, we suppose we ought to note that Mr. Perle no longer plays an official role in the Bush Administration and hasn't served in this capacity since the dawn of the Iraq War. Moreover, we guess we should add that, to the best of our knowledge, Mr. Perle hasn't murdered anyone. We know: Details, details.

In addition, perhaps Mr. Perry should realize that his two assessments of Perle--"Neo-Con Architect of the Iraq war" and "the Adolf Eichman [sic] of the Bush Administration"--don't make any sense in tandem. Which is it? Did he plan the war or was he merely "following orders"?

Additionally, one might note that Mr. Perle is Jewish, and thus Mr. Perry's likening him to Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann may be particularly offensive. But this requires us to believe that Mr. Perry actually knows who Adolf Eichmann is, which there is ample reason to doubt.

Also, there's the small matter of the actual event. You see, if you take a gander at the accompanying pictures, you'll find Mr. Perle politely chatting with the protestors; it doesn't appear much like "BIG FUN humiliating the MURDERER" to us.

But perhaps this offers a perfect example of our point: To the unhinged Bill Perry, a tepid confrontation equals an abject humiliation, just as a neoconservative intellectual equals Adolf Eichmann. How more estranged from reality can you get?

(Note: The crack young staff usually "weblog" over at "The Hatemonger's Quarterly," where they are currently writing a book on a Jewish builder tentatively titled The Neo-Con Architect.)

Religious, political and communal leaders and women’s rights campaigners have expressed serious concern this week at the announcement that Northern & Shell chairman Richard Desmond is to be the next president of Norwood, the community’s leading child- and family-welfare charity.

Mr Desmond has been a supporter of the charity for more than 20 years and donated £2 million to its Annie Lawson School in 2004. He is to succeed Sir Trevor Chinn, who has served as president for 10 years and will become life president. Mr Desmond said his primary focus would be “to re-invigorate Norwood’s donor base.”

As well as publishing the Express and Star titles and OK! Magazine, Mr Desmond’s company — which sold its adult magazine titles in 2004 — also owns a number of adult pay and subscription TV channels, which include Red Hot Raw, Red Hot Climax, Red Hot Only 18 and Television X.

Rabbi Yitzchak Schochet, of Mill Hill Synagogue, who holds the family portfolio in the Chief Rabbi’s cabinet, told the JC: “I was especially disturbed to learn that Richard Desmond was to become president of Norwood. I don’t have a problem with the man per se and I think it is wonderful that he chooses to donate so much money to Jewish and other charitable causes. But to be official figurehead of a family charity is considerably more problematic. There are certain compromises that should never be made, no matter what the financial gain. Norwood needs to think carefully about the message it is putting out there.”

June Jacobs, former chair of the International Council of Jewish Women, life president of Jewish Child’s Day and a life member of the League of Jewish Women, said: “I would never want anybody who makes money from porn, and putting down women in many ways, taking a responsible role in the community. As someone who fights so much for women’s rights, I’m upset and I find it hard to understand how a person who made money in this sort of press should be given a role in this most respectable Anglo-Jewish organisation.”

A former senior employee of the charity also expressed “very strong” opposition to the appointment: “It is an example of double standards — on the one hand, the charity does excellent work in promoting healthy relationships within the family and fights hard to tackle abuse at all levels. On the other hand, it has the dilemma of needing cash to fund its services. But on balance, this seems to be an unfortunate decision.”

Another former senior figure in Jewish welfare told the JC he was “bemused and slightly puzzled” when he heard of the appointment. “Bearing in mind his other business interests, it’s strange he should be president of the largest Jewish family and children’s charity.”

Eric Moonman, former vice-president of the Board of Deputies and chairman of the Zionist Federation, noted: “Mr Desmond must be made very much aware of the baggage he carries and he will have to prove himself.”

Rosalind Preston, former president of the National Council of Women of Great Britain, said: “I think it was a strange appointment because of what I know about his reputation nationally. I don’t know his reputation personally or in the charity world.”

Lady Jakobovits, patron of a number of leading Jewish charities, said she didn’t know Mr Desmond personally but was “desperately waiting for the day when society will rediscover morality and live by it.”

Well, having lived in London for two years and knowing some of those quoted, let me just say that June ("Missing-a-Few-Buttons") Jacobs and Eric ("Socialist-Baggage-Weighted") Moonman have very little moral contribution to make to this story.

WALVIS BAY, Namibia (Reuters) -- Hollywood heavyweights Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt -- described as the "World's Most Beautiful Family" by 'People' -- have had a baby daughter in one of the most anticipated celebrity stories of the year, the magazine said on Sunday.

A representative for the couple said Jolie, 30, had given birth to Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt on Saturday in Namibia, a sparsely populated desert country in southwest Africa. There were no further details available, People reported.

The couple, dubbed "Brangelina" by the tabloids, have been closely followed by the paparazzi in Namibia since arriving there weeks ago to have their baby.

Jolie reportedly took a shine to Namibia, better known for dunes and diamonds, while filming the movie "Beyond Borders". She is a frequent visitor to Africa and is a Goodwill Ambassador for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.

The couple have been staying in a sealed off beach resort in the tiny village of Langstrand and it was unclear if the child had been delivered there or at one of the private hospitals in the nearby towns of Walvis Bay and Swakopmund.

Well, we at Shiloh have a great opportunity for good Hasbara now. Can we take advantage? I would suggest changing the spelling our our community's name the way I usually spell it first of all.

“We can't negotiate about the existence of Israel, but we can reduce its size to historical proportions,” Henry Kissinger, the 56th Secretary of State of the United States from 1973 to 1977, told his Iraqi counterpart in a high-level meeting three decades ago, according to a December 1975 memo presenting details of a conversation between Kissinger and Foreign Affairs Minister Saadoun Hammadi eight years after Iraq cut its ties with the U.S.

Highlighting U.S. efforts at that time to win friends in the Arab world while it was aiding Israel militarily, the papers further quoted Kissinger as saying:

“We are on the other side of the fence,” Kissinger said at that time.

“What the United States is doing is not to create peace but to create a situation dominated by Israel.”

“Our attitude is not unsympathetic to Iraq. Don't believe; watch it.”

“Israel will be like Lebanon - struggling for existence, with no influence in the Arab world,” said Kissinger, who also stated that the U.S. public was more sympathetic with the Palestinians’ struggle for independence, claiming that Washington was reconsidering the huge amount of aid it gives the Jewish State.

But Hammadi was still skepticalabout Kissinger’s claims. He asked him whether the U.S. would recognize Palestinian identity and a Palestinian state.

“Is it in your power to create such a thing?” Hammadi asked.

But Kissinger replied with a little bit maneuver, telling him that he can’t make recognition of Palestinian identity happen right away.

...Only the week before, she did a glowing show on the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the world's most anti-Semitic country.

The alleged premise of the show was, "The World's Youngest Queen," Queen Rania of Jordan (she's Palestinian). But that was the ruse to present viewers with features on several carefully selected Jordanian women whose message was: "Life in Jordan is just like yours." The women spoke perfect English with nary an accent. Just like us. They had careers and ordered Domino's Pizza. Just like us. And they and their husbands who love them are watching their weight. Just like us.

Oprah gushed so much over Queen Rania and her beauty, it was hard to remember she is from the Islamic Middle East. And that was the point. Oprah has been working overtime to promote Jordan and Islam. This is Rania's second Oprah appearance in five years, with the first on an "Islam 101" episode just after 9/11.

But here's the real Jordan you didn't--and will never--see on Oprah:

A 2005 Pew Research Center survey of 17,000 people found that Jordan the most anti-Semitic country in the world. Not just 95 percent of its people have unfavorable views of Jews. It is 100 percent. A full 41 percent of them don't like Christians either.

Queen Rania's largely Palestinian country (a demographic not mentioned on Oprah) didn't just beat the world in hatred for the Jews. Jordan leads in support for homicide bombings AND confidence in Osama Bin Laden "to do the right thing."

A whopping 88 percent of Jordanians support suicide bombings. That's up from 2002, when "only" 65 percent of Jordanians supported this "method" of dealing with perceived problems. Then, there's Bin Laden. Some 80 percent of Jordanians have "confidence in Osama Bin Laden to do the right thing regarding world affairs." And 57 percent of Jordanians said "violence against civilians in defense of Islam is justified."

Just like us?

Rania told Oprah that while Jordanians don't like U.S. policies, "they love America and Americans." Really? Pew Research says the country is the most anti-American in the world, with 79 percent viewing the U.S. unfavorably. Rania claimed women in her country are different and will end Mid-East violence. Pew Research found Jordanian women held the same hateful viewpoints as men.

Oprah, on her show and in her magazine, has called Queen Rania a "hero" for becoming queen. But there is nothing heroic about marrying a king or being beautiful. And there's nothing heroic about whitewashing a country whose degree of anti-Semitism surpasses even that of Nazi Germany at the height of the Holocaust.

May 28, 2006 -- BAGHDAD - An Iraqi tennis coach and two of his players were killed because they were wearing shorts, apparently in violation of a warning by Islamic extremists.

Gunmen stopped the car in which the athletes were riding and asked them to step out before shooting them Wednesday, Manham Kubba, secretary general of the Iraqi Tennis Union, said Saturday. The coach, Hussein Ahmed Rashid, was Sunni, and the two players were Shiite, Kubba said.

The athletes were in shorts when they were killed, and police believe the attack was related to a warning by extremists against such attire.

Sir, - Prime Minister Olmert's speech before Congress last Wednesday included this line: "Peace with Egypt became possible only after president Anwar Sadat came to the Knesset and declared no more war, no more bloodshed." But Sadat said nothing of the sort in the Knesset. What he did say was: "Ring the bells for your sons. Tell them that those wars were the last of wars and the end of sorrows."

Only at a press conference on November 21 did he say: "The two slogans that I want everyone to say are: 'Let us have no war after October' and 'Let us agree upon security.'"

The phrase Olmert highlighted was authored by prime minister Menachem Begin. In a broadcast to the Egyptian people on November 11, 1977, Begin said: "No more wars, no more bloodshed, and no more threats." He repeated this in his Knesset speech the next week.

At the November 21 press conference Begin stated: "No more war, no more bloodshed, no more attacks… let us give a silent oath, one to another: No more war, no more bloodshed, no more threats."

At the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in December 1978, Begin said; " "No more war, no more bloodshed" and at the March 1979 White House Lawn signing ceremony Begin declared: "No more war, no more bereavement, no more bloodshed."

YISRAEL MEDAD Shiloh

P.S. I erred. Since Begin spoke in Hebrew in the Knesset, the phrase actually is not contained therein.

People like Jim Levinson. Although not an ordained rabbi, educator Levinson is spiritual leader of the Brattleboro Area Jewish Community and a learned scholar of his faith who is also knowledgeable about Christianity and Islam. His knowledge of the history and tenets of Islam and how they coincide with those of Judaism served the community well last fall, when he presided over a combined Jewish/Islam Sabbath service at Congregation Shir He Harim in Brattleboro. The Friday evening service was coda to the weeklong program, Salaam/Shalom, put together by SIT, with cooperation from the BAJC and many contributors. Levinson lives with his family in Marlboro, Vermont.

Friday, May 26, 2006

This photo from the archives of the IDF was published today in Haaretz.

It shows Rav Shlomo Goren zatzal in his IDF uniform holding a shofar and his persoanl Sefer Torah (the same that can be seen in the photogrpahs showing him at the Western Wall) but he is located on the Temple Mount (Har Habayit) inside the Dome of the Rock, the most sacred precinct of the Temple area.

It was found by Yehuda Etzion and as a single frame from a film that had been censored and never shown.

It strenghtens the view that Rav Goren held that during a time of kibbush (conquest) that sacredness temporarily is suspended.

The implications are wide-reaching and I'll get back to this after Shabbat.

This photograph, which is being published for the first time, shows Rabbi Shlomo Goren on June 7, 1967 in the Dome of the Rock, on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, holding a shofar and a Torah scroll. The photo is stirring great excitement among the Temple Mount movements; it could generate an earthquake regarding the view presented in halakha (Jewish religious law) concerning the entry of Jews to the Mount.

Goren, who was at the time the chief army chaplain, was known as the most prominent opponent of the rabbinic-halakhic consensus of the time, holding that Jews must be forbidden to visit the Temple Mount. Immediately after the Six-Day War, he sent members of the Chaplaincy Corps to carry out measurements on the Temple Mount, and he stipulated areas in which Jews must not set foot, for fear of treading on the place where the Temple and the Holy of Holies stood - places which Goren, too, said were off-limits to Jews in our time. Goren described the area as "Herodian additions" (the construction that King Herod added to the site of the original Temple) and allowed Jews to visit it, contrary to the position taken by the Chief Rabbinate Council and most of the religious-Zionist and Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) sages.

Now, on the basis of this photograph, it turns out, ostensibly, that under the "law of the conquest of areas of the Land of Israel" (which makes it mandatory to conquer areas that are held by gentiles), Goren allowed himself - in the course of the war - to enter the heart of hearts of the Dome of the Rock. This is the very place which, according to Goren himself, and according to many others as well, is the place where the Holy of Holies stood.

In the opinion of some of the Temple Mount movements and their rabbis, the "law of conquest" continues to apply today as well, in light of the Palestinians' de facto control of the Temple Mount. Therefore, it is obligatory to conquer it and thereby realize Jewish sovereignty and ownership of the Temple Mount. This photograph ostensibly supplies such movements with proof that the "law of conquest" makes it permissible to enter the most sacred area of the Temple Mount today.

The photograph is from the forthcoming "Collected Writings of Shabtai Ben Dov." Ben Dov, a member of the pre-state Lehi underground organization, who died 27 years ago, wrote much about the kingdom of Israel, the Temple and the image of the future redemption. Yehuda Etzion, a member of the Jewish underground organization in the 1980s, sees Ben Dov as his mentor and is publishing his writings. Etzion found the photograph in the Israel Defense Forces Archives, in a film that was never released for publication.

I have posted some blog thoughts on the terms the media and politicans use to describe in the most unoffensive and misleading ways possible their policies (here) and here and here) and I now see that someone has caught on and written about it:

It’s a political question, not a literary one, for Israelis who are debating whether to call Ehud Olmert’s planned pullout of troops and settlers from the West Bank a withdrawal, a disengagement, a convergence, or a realignment.

The difference’s isn’t just semantic for the government, which has to sell a controversial policy.

“It’s domestic political marketing,” said Yaron Ezrahi, political science professor at Hebrew University. “You don’t withdraw from your own land.”

Each pullback over the last 15 years received its own nickname.

When Israel signed the Oslo Accords and agreed to withdraw the army from the major Palestinian population centers, the Labor government termed it a “redeployment.”

Several years later, when the Likud government was forced to continue the pullbacks called for under Oslo, they called them “beats” or “stages,” which allowed then-Prime Minister Netanyahu to show that he was conditioning the concessions to Palestinian progress.

Last year, when Israel left Gaza, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called it a “disengagement,” or ‘hitnatkut” in Hebrew.

But his successor, Ehud Olmert, calls his plan to unilaterally evacuate about 70,000 West Bank settlers and build up three main settlement blocs a “hitkansut,” which literally means a convergence. “Disengagement,” he likely thought, was abandoned, because the Hebrew word comes from a root that means to sever.

“Disengagement means that we want to separate from them, we don’t want any part of them,” said Sam Lehman Wilzig, a political science professor at Bar Ilan University. “The problem was that it had a negative connotation, and the settlers could say that we don’t care about the Land of Israel.”

The new Hebrew has a much more positive connotation. It shares the same root as the words for convention or entrance. It can also be translated as “ingathering,” but that word was thought to be too religiously charged.

Only in the final hours before Olmert’s White House meeting on Tuesday did Israeli government officials confirm that realignment had been chosen as the official translation.

“Realignment is a better translation of what they’re trying to accomplish,” said Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, the president of the Israel Project. “Realignment speaks to shifting the lines, and it’s a way to dealing with friction between the sides” while not giving up Israel’s historic claim to the land.

While waiting for a bus today here in Jerusalem (after finishing work at the Begin Heritage Center and before going to the Machane Yehudah shuq and then to the Egged Bus Station to catch transportation home to Shiloh), I noticed a sticker on a post which read (in translation):

Time to Speak (Et L'Daber)

Help for Religious Men and BoysWho Have Experienced Sex Abuse

02-5328000 Between 8-11 PM

So, reflecting on one of the more hotter issues recently in the Jewish Blogospher, I thought it only proper that I inform all of you of its existence.

=========================

UPDATE

Friday's JPost carries a page 5 story on this (but I couldn't find any web citation)and notes this is sponsored by the Tel Aviv Sexuality Center.

The Tel Aviv-based Sexuality Center, which has branches in Jerusalem and Haifa, is seeking to raise awareness among the haredi community of the clinic's behavioral approach to sexual treatments and its anonymous telephone hot line, according to director Dr. Ilan Biran.

"The free help line is open for everyone, but it is dedicated primarily to the haredim," Biran told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday. "The sexual problems that we see in the haredi community are really no different from those among secular people. However, they [haredim] lack basic information concerning sexual functioning and intimate relations.

"Within the haredi community there is a stigma about asking for professional help and all those we treat are anxious about discretion," said Biran, adding that haredim were at a disadvantage because typically they do not have access to the volumes of information and support on the Internet.

Biran, a veteran psychologist who has been working in sexual therapy for many years, said that the clinic's therapists had developed techniques specifically to deal with problems in the haredi community.

"One of the basic exercises sexual therapists recommend to clients is masturbation, but that is forbidden to a religious man. Also, there are two weeks a month when a religious couple is not allowed to touch one another, let alone make love. Our therapists have learned to deal with these constraints and make the best of them," said Biran.

Biran said he had been working with a number of rabbis and community leaders under condition of anonymity, and that they had been receptive to the center's work.

"There are a few rabbis who are now offering sexual advice," said Biran, "and while they are not qualified therapists, I encourage this activity because it gives legitimacy to people to ask for help. A rabbi can then refer patients to us."

Jerusalem-based psychologist Dr. Baruch Shulem, who is himself haredi, said he was doubtful that the clinic would get official recognition from the community. However, he did say that the stigma of seeking sexual counseling was changing.

"I find that couples seeking therapy do not come to me quickly for help, but when they do come they are very cooperative," said Shulem.

Nonetheless, it is the policy in the haredi community to allow sexual education to be a natural process, he said, adding that there were no steps being taken to increase sexual awareness among youth. "As a professional I agree with that approach," said Shulem, who treats both religious and non-religious couples in his private clinic.

Biran noted that most of the haredim calling the help line, which has been running for nearly 10 years, were men. He also said that he had noticed a shift in the type of problems being raised.

"In the past, most of the men were concerned about consummating the marriage," said Biran. "Today, however, men are also seeking treatments in premature ejaculation and in trying to help their wives reach orgasm. Also, there are women asking for help with penetration pain. The haredim are finally waking up to the fact that quality of life doesn't only come from the mitzvot."

In regards to confronting issues of rape and sexual abuse, Biran said the community still had a long way to go. "What I have noticed is that in this sector they hide their problems and do not complain when there is a sexual offense," said Biran, who has worked with sex offenders in prison.

Shulem, however, said that there is awareness of sexual abuse in the haredi community. "Things are being done about it - our way might not be acceptable to the secular world, but we believe it's the best way.

"Despite what they [haredim] say, this kind of problem [sexual abuse] is as bad in the haredi sector, if not worse, as it is in the secular community," argued Biran, adding that he hoped haredim would welcome the clinic's sexual help line as one way of dealing with this problem.

The hot line can be reached at 1-800-588-999 or for more information visit www.sexuality.co.il.

IT IS the ultimate conundrum of the poultry world, debated by generations of scientists, academics and philosophers.

Which came first: the oval thing with the hard shell, or the dim-witted, toothless bird that clucks as it crosses the road for no obvious reason? Now two of the best brains in the land (and a chicken farmer) claim to have solved the catch 22. The answer, it has been decreed, is the egg.

And here follows the science, expressed as far as possible in terms a reasonably educated hen would understand.

Genetic material does not change during an animal’s life. Therefore, the first bird that evolved into what we would call a chicken, probably in prehistoric times, must first have existed as an embryo inside an egg.

Professor John Brookfield, a specialist in evolutionary genetics at the University of Nottingham, who was put to work on the dilemma, said that the pecking order was perfectly clear: the living organism inside the eggshell would have the same DNA as the chicken that it would become.

“Therefore, the first living thing which we could say unequivocally was a member of the species would be this first egg,” he said. “So I would conclude that the egg came first.”

David Papineau, an academic specialising in the philosophy of science at King’s College London, concurred. In his view, the first chicken came from an egg, which, he claims, proves that there were chicken eggs before there were chickens. Here, the science moves out of reach of the hen-brained. Professor Papineau maintained that people were mistaken if they argued that the first chicken egg was a mutant produced by non-chicken parents.

“I would argue that it is a chicken egg if it has a chicken in it,” he said. “If a kangaroo laid an egg from which an ostrich hatched, that would surely be an ostrich egg, not a kangaroo egg.”

It is perhaps best at this difficultjuncture to gloss over the fact that a kangaroo is a marsupial and does not lay eggs in the way that chickens or ostriches do — or all. Rather, it gives birth to a joey.

Also, a kangaroo bouncing around the Outback would be highly unlikely to come across an ostrich with which to attempt such an unlikely union. These overgrown birds inhabit an altogether different continent.

Charles Bourns, a chicken farmer and chairman of the trade body Great British Chicken, also favours the egg argument. He said: “Eggs were around long before the first chicken arrived. Of course, they may not have been chicken eggs as we see them today, but they were eggs.”

But the biggest question of all remains unanswered: what laid that first egg, if it wasn’t a chicken?

When first seen, Daniel (Ash Newman), the insufferable teenage playboy hero of Caroline Roboh's "Shem," is breaking off concurrent relationships with an older woman (portrayed by Ms. Roboh, who also wrote and produced) and her son. Sexual adventure — which here comes off as clumsy rather than racy — is the force that drives him, as he prances around London thinking he's God's gift to man and woman.

But his freewheeling existence is put into question when his eccentric grandmother (Hadassah Hungar Diamant), the one person he genuinely cares for, sends him on a wild-goose chase to locate her father's grave.

Traveling through Paris, Berlin, Prague, Budapest, Belgrade in Serbia and Sofia in Bulgaria, he learns a thing or two about life, most poignantly that feelings of true romantic love can exist, even for someone who can't reciprocate. He also receives valuable history lessons about his Jewish heritage, which in the past meant very little to him.

Daniel's character transformation, however limited (he ranges from complete to partial arrogant jerk), is far more credible than any of the film's half-baked attempts at morphing into a conspiracy thriller involving his great-grandfather. By the time the frustratingly silly ending arrives, it's confirmed that "Shem," which translates to "name" in Hebrew, is just as confused as its protagonist. Daniel's looks may charm everyone who crosses his path, but he is like the movie: most of the depth that does exist remains buried beneath the surface.

A letter writer, one Michael F. Brown of Takoma Park, Md., who was a former executive director of Partners for Peace, had these two sentences published in the New York Times today:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President Bush have arrogated to themselves the right to negotiate away Palestinian land. Past colonial powers did precisely the same.

Pardon me, sir. This is the land of the Jewish people, their national patrimony. The territory was intended to be where the Jewish state was to be reestablished.

And then the Arabs, who only arrived there in 638 CE (2500 years after the Jews) as a conquering force and were dislodged as a sovereign power by the Crusaders, etc. and et al., initiated violence and refused all attempts at compromise, negotiation and understanding.

Professor Moshe Zimmerman, a historian who was not present at the meeting, called his experience with such programs "very bitter." He said that in another special program for the Israel Defense Forces command college, students missed one of his classes because they were serving at roadblocks. Zimmerman said at the time he would "prefer that if someone misses my class, it is because he is sitting in jail because he did not want to sit at a roadblock."

The commander of the military college demanded that Zimmerman not continue to teach the course. When his demand was not met, the army pulled out of the course and the university offered another instead. "This shows that these are not purely academic programs," Zimmerman said, but that the security institution can force the hand of the university, and by cooperating with the military, the university loses its academic freedom.

What a putz. Just the opposite.

He himself is not being purely academic and objective beacuse he permitted his own personal political/ideological opinions to override the academic elements of the soldeir's absence. He intervened.

Thursday, May 25, 2006

Realignment would be a process to allow Israel to build its future without being held hostage to Palestinian terrorist activities. Realignment would significantly reduce the friction between Israelis and Palestinians and prevent much of the conflict between our two battered nations.

Ehud Olmert has finally found a better word that "convergence" and probably didn't like my suggestion of "dimunition".

And how is realignment defined:

1. To put back into proper order or alignment.2. To make new groupings of or working arrangements between.

And there's another application:-

In US politics, this term refers to occasional historic shifts of public opinion and voter concerns that either undermine or enhance one or another party's traditional base of support.

And in economics, there is a realignment of currencies --

simultaneous and mutually coordinated revaluation and devaluation of the currencies of several countries.

And where are the bleeding-heart liberals who lambast Israel when these things continue to occur?

Horrified eyewitnesses alerted Ramle police Tuesday evening to a stabbing underway in the parking lot behind the city's Bank Hapoalim branch. Within a minute of the report, a patrol car arrived on the scene to find a young woman covered in blood, an apparent victim of what is known as a 'family honor killing'.

The two police officers called for reinforcements from both police and MDA, and while one set out in pursuit of a man seen fleeing the scene, the second police officer remained with the mortally wounded young woman, a 24-year-old resident of the city. Attempts to resuscitate the young woman failed, and she was later pronounced dead on the scene.

Detectives continued the searches for the suspect in a nearby wooded area, where they saw and arrested a young man with blood-soaked clothing who had attempted to flee. During the initial questioning, the suspect acknowledged that the young woman was his sister, and admitting to committing the murder, Yifrach said. The 27-year-old suspect was already known to the police and has a criminal record.

Police sources within the Shfela Subdistrict said that the murder was believed to be an 'honor killing,' a phenomenon in Arab communities in which women are murdered by their relatives because the family believes that the woman's actions have besmirched the family honor.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's speech before a joint session of the American Congress last Wednesday included this line: " Peace with Egypt became possible only after President Anwar Sadat came to Knesset and declared no more war, no more bloodshed." But Sadat said nothing of the sort in the Knesset.

What the Egyptian president did say was:

"Ring the bells for your sons. Tell them that those wars were the last of wars and the end of sorrows."

It was only at a press conference on November 21 that he said something similar: " the two slogans that I want everyone to say are: 'Let us have no war after October' and 'Let us agree upon security'."

The phrase Olmert highlighted was authored by Israel's Prime Minister Menachem Begin. In a broadcast to the Egyptian people on November 11, 1977, Begin said: "No more wars, no more bloodshed, and no more threats" and he repeated it in his Knesset speech the next week.

At the Nov. 21 press conference Begin stated: "No more war, no more bloodshed, no more attacks…let us give a silent oath, one to another: No more war, no more bloodshed, no more threats."

At the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in December 1978 Begin said; " "No more war, no more bloodshed” and the March 1979 White House Lawn signing ceremony Begin declared: "No more war, no more bereavement, no more bloodshed”.

Wiesel received a draft of the speech last week in order to add to it and make comments.

Wiesel joined former prime minister Ariel Sharon on the March of the Living at Auschwitz last year, and the two held a long conversation during the trip.

Olmert spent hours working on his speech, poring over drafts written by two Foreign Ministry officials, including attorney Daniel Taub of the Law Division. Olmert's chief of staff, Yoram Turbowicz, and his foreign policy adviser, Shalom Turjeman, were in charge of the final version.

The Prime Minister and I have known each other since 1998, when he was the mayor of Jerusalem, and I was the governor of Texas. And I remember you greeting me in your office there, and you probably thought you were going to be the Prime Minister -- I wasn't sure if I was going to be the President. (Laughter.)

We've just had a really productive meeting. We reaffirmed the deep and abiding ties between Israel and the United States. And those ties include our commitment to democracy and our strong belief that everybody has the right to worship freely. The ties include growing trade and economic relationships. The ties include important educational exchange programs that allow Israeli students to study in American colleges and universities, and American students to travel and study in Israel.

In our meeting, the Prime Minister and I recalled the great contributions to peace made by Ariel Sharon. I asked the Prime Minister to convey my very best wishes to Ariel Sharon's sons.

Prime Minister Olmert and I discussed peace and security in the Middle East, which the people of Israel seek and the American people support. In 2002, I outlined my vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security. Prime Minister Olmert told me that he and his government share this vision. The international community seeks to realize this goal to the road map, which calls for a comprehensive settlement that resolves all outstanding issues between Israelis and Palestinians. I believe, and Prime Minister Olmert agrees, that a negotiated final status agreement best serves both the Israelis and the Palestinians, and the cause of peace.

Palestinian Authority President Abbas favors and speaks out for peace and negotiations. Yet, the Hamas-led Palestinian government does not. Hamas needs to make a strategic choice for peace. The United States and the international community have made clear that Hamas must recognize Israel's right to exist, must abandon terror, and must accept all previous agreements between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. No country can be expected to make peace with those who deny its right to exist and who use terror to attack its population.

Today, Prime Minister Olmert shared with me some of his ideas -- I would call them bold ideas. These ideas could lead to a two-state solution if a pathway to progress on the road map is not open in the period ahead. His ideas include the removal of most Israeli settlements, except for the major Israeli population centers in the West Bank. This idea would follow Prime Minister Sharon's decision to remove all settlements in Gaza and several in the West Bank.

I look forward to learning more about the Prime Minister's ideas. While any final status agreement will be only achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes, and no party should prejudice the outcome of negotiations on a final status agreement, the Prime Minister's ideas could be an important step toward the peace we both support. I'm encouraged by his constructive efforts to find ways to move the peace process forward.

And finally, the Prime Minister and I shared our concerns about the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons ambitions. The United States and the international community have made our common position clear: We're determined that the Iranian regime must not gain nuclear weapons.

I told the Prime Minister what I've stated publicly before: Israel is a close friend and ally of the United States, and in the event of any attack on Israel, the United States will come to Israel's aid. The United States is strongly committed, and I'm strongly committed, to the security of Israel as a vibrant, Jewish state.

I look forward to our continuing discussions after this press conference. I'm not sure the delegations realize this yet, but we're going to shed ourselves of our delegations and the Prime Minister and I are going to go up to the Residence and sit down and have a continued dialogue. And if we decide to brief our delegations on what we discuss, we will do so. But if not, they're going to have to guess. (Laughter.) And then I'm looking forward to dinner.

Welcome.

PRIME MINISTER OLMERT: Thank you, Mr. President. I thank you for your kind invitation to visit Washington, and for the opportunity to meet with you and discuss the many issues on our common agenda. Our meeting was enlightening, and I look forward to working closely with you in the coming years, to deepen the friendship, understanding and bilateral ties between the United States and Israel.

I also recall our meeting in the city hall when you and I were strolling around the beautiful building, at the terrace on the sixth floor, watching the walls of the city of Jerusalem. At that time you were the governor, I was the mayor, and I think none of us thought that the day would come that I will have the honor and the privilege of being hosted by you as President of the United States and Prime Minister of Israel.

I could sense then your deep connection to the Holy Land, and your friendship and commitment to the state of Israel. I must say, Mr. President, that my instincts did not fail me. I, and the entire people of Israel, appreciate your true friendship and unwavering commitment to Israel's security and its well-being as a vibrant Jewish state.

Your involvement in the Middle East and personal contribution to the efforts towards resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict has been significant. The vision which you outlined in your historic speech of June 2002, of two democratic states living side-by-side in peace and security, is the basis of any progress towards a solution in this region. Your unreserved support of the disengagement plan in your letter of April 14, 2004, to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon -- and I join you in praying for his recovery -- were the basis for the success of its implementation. What you immediately recognized to be an historic state was later adopted by all those who were skeptical in the beginning.

I intend to exhaust every possibility to promote peace with the Palestinians, according to the road map, and I extend my hand in peace to Mahmoud Abbas, the elected President of the Palestinian Authority. I hope he will take the necessary steps which he committed to in order to move forward.

Unfortunately, the rise of Hamas, a terrorist organization which refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist, and regards terrorism as a legitimate tool, severely undermines the possibility of promoting a genuine peace process. As you stated, Mr. President, the Palestinian Authority headed by Hamas government must abandon the path of terrorism, dismantle the terror infrastructure, honor agreements and recognize Israel's right to exist. By doing so they will find us a willing partner in peace. However, we will not enter into any kind of partnership with a party which refuses to recognize our right to live in peace and security.

Despite our sincere desire for negotiations, we cannot wait indefinitely for the Palestinians to change. We cannot be held hostage by a terrorist entity which refuses to change or to promote dialogue. If we come to the conclusion that no progress is possible, we will be compelled to try a different route.

I presented to the President ideas which I believe could help advance his vision and prevent a political stalemate. According to these ideas, we will remove most of the settlements which are not part of the major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria. The settlements within the population centers would remain under Israeli control and become part of the state of Israel, as part of the final status agreement. This process of free alignment would reduce friction between Israelis and Palestinians, ensure territorial contiguity for the Palestinians, and guarantee Israel's security as a Jewish state with the borders it desires.

The implementation of these ideas would only be possible with the comprehensive support of the United States and the international community. I anticipate working with you to explore ways to advance this.

We discussed the Iranian issue. The Iranian regime, which calls for Israel's destruction, openly denies the Holocaust, and views the United States as its enemy, makes every effort to implement its fundamentalist religious ideology and blatantly disregards the demands of the international community. The Iranian threat is not only a threat to Israel, it is a threat to the stability of the Middle East and the entire world. And it could mark the beginning of a dangerous and irresponsible arms race in the Middle East.

Mr. President, we appreciate your efforts to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions, including through the U.N. Security Council. They are of crucial importance. The international community cannot tolerate a situation where a regime with a radical ideology and a long tradition of irresponsible conduct becomes a nuclear weapons state. This is a moment of truth. It is still not too late to prevent it from happening.

I thank you again for your gracious hospitality and for our discussions. I look forward to continue working with you, Mr. President. Thank you very much.

PRESIDENT BUSH: We'll take two questions a side, starting with Steve Holland.

Q You mentioned that the West Bank plan could be an important step. Doesn't this sweep away the U.S. principle of a negotiated two-state solution? And should the Palestinian side approve any plan that would establish Israel's final borders?

PRESIDENT BUSH: You just heard the Prime Minister say that he's going to exhaust all options to negotiate, that he wants to reach out a hand to President Abbas. And I agree. I said in my opening statement that the best solution is one in which there's a negotiated final status. And we discussed -- we spent ways -- we spent some time discussing about how it's important to get a Palestinian President to the table. And the Prime Minister says he looks forward to discussing the issue.

And so our preferred option, of course, is there to be a negotiated settlement. On the other hand, as the Prime Minister said, that if he's unable to find a partner in peace, if nothing can go forward, he is willing to think about ways to advance the process forward.

And in order to solve this problem, there needs to be willingness to take the lead, and creativity, and the desire to follow through on the vision. The most important aspect about peace is to have a vision for peace. And I appreciate the Prime Minister's vision of two states, side-by-side -- two democratic states side-by-side in peace. That's possible.

And so what I come away from the meeting with is that the Prime Minister, one, has a vision; two, willing to reach out to determine whether or not that vision exists with the Palestinian President, which I think it does; three, is willing to work to see whether or not it is possible for two sides to come together, and if not, is still willing to consider other ways to move the process forward. That's, to me, a very positive statement.

Q You said you wanted to hear more. Is there anything that worries you about this plan?

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, the only thing that worries me about the plan is that Hamas has said they want to destroy Israel. And the reason that worries me is, how can you have two states, side-by-side in peace, if one of the partners does not recognize the other state's right to exist? It's illogical for somebody to say, I'm for a state, side-by-side with another state, and yet I don't want the state to exist. And so we spent time talking about Hamas, and I assured the Prime Minister that our position is steady and strong; that Hamas must change.

Now, we care about the Palestinian people -- and I say, we, both of us -- he can speak for himself on this issue -- but we are trying to set up a mechanism that supports the Palestinian people. Our beef is not with the Palestinian people. Our beef is with the government that -- a group in the government that says they don't recognize Israel. And so the United States, we're working with the Europeans -- Condi's people in the State Department are working with the Europeans to come up with a mechanism to get food and medicine and aid to the Palestinians.

You may want to comment on it yourself, Mr. Prime Minister.

PRIME MINISTER OLMERT: Thank you, Mr. President. Indeed, the government, Sunday, decided to spend 50 million shekels buying medical equipment -- 50 million shekels, about $11 million -- for the time being, to buy medical equipment and drugs needed for the hospitals in Gaza. And as I said during the Cabinet meeting, we will spend any amount of money needed in order to save lives of innocent Palestinians suffering from the indifference of their government. We will not hesitate to do it. We will use the revenues that we have collected, and more if necessary. We will make arrangements, together with our friends, so that the supplies will arrive directly to those who need them.

This is a humanitarian commitment. We are absolutely committed to help innocent people that suffer from the brutality and the intransigence of their own government, and we will continue to do it at all times.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Q Mr. Prime Minister, are you satisfied from what you have learned out of your meeting with the President with regard of the Iranian issue? And what's your message to the Israeli public about this issue?

And, Mr. President, with your permission, there is a military option, from your point of view, to solve the threat of the Iranian problem, their work on -- to getting a nuclear weapon?

PRIME MINISTER OLMERT: The Iranian issue was discussed, indeed, between the President and myself. And we'll continue to talk about it later. Obviously, there is a major threat posed, as I've said already, and the President said, by the Iranians and their attempts to have non-conventional capabilities and also to build up delivery systems and the ballistic missiles that can hit major centers all across Europe, not just in the Middle East.

This is something that needs to be stopped. We discussed this issue at length, and there is a total agreement and understanding between the President and myself that there is a need to stop it. And we reviewed the different ways how to do it, and I am very satisfied with what I heard from the President and on what we agreed that we would continue to do in order to achieve this goal.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Our primary objective is to solve this problem diplomatically. I've told the American people that I will, on all issues, we'll try diplomacy first and exhaust diplomacy. And I explained to the Prime Minister that -- about our diplomatic efforts -- the most important thing in diplomacy is that there be a shared goal and -- in other words, you have to have a common objective, a common goal in order to get people to come together around it. And now we have got a common goal throughout most of the world, and that is, Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. And that's important, and we are now working the diplomatic front around that goal.

We have a variety of options, one of which, of course, is the United Nations Security Council, if the Iranians aren't willing to show progress toward that goal. We're working very closely with what's called the EU3. That's Germany, England and France. And I've been pleased, and Secretary of State Rice has been pleased about their willingness to stay tough on the goal, of achieving the goal. Sometimes when you've got a variety of negotiating parties, it's easier for one -- a non-transparent negotiator to pick off a weak link. And yet, they've been firm, and that's important for Israel to know. It's important for me to praise our partners for that strength of purpose.

- - - -

Q Mr. President, the Prime Minister just said that the settlement blocks in the major population centers will be part of Israel, annexed to Israel in the future. Do you support that? Would the United States sanction that?

And, Mr. Prime Minister, can you give us some assessment of the time that you are willing to wait for the emergence of a Palestinian partner?

PRESIDENT BUSH: My answer to your question is, refer to my April 14th, 2004 letter. I believed it when I wrote it, and I still believe it. (Laughter.)

Q -- (inaudible) --

PRESIDENT BUSH: -- rare that I wrote the letter, or rare that I believed what I wrote? (Laughter.)

PRIME MINISTER OLMERT: First of all, I want to emphasize again what I said before and what I said before the elections and immediately after the elections in Israel, and when my government was inaugurated in the Knesset just a couple of weeks ago. I said that we will make a genuine effort to negotiate with the Palestinian side on the basis of the road map, which is the framework for future negotiations towards, hopefully, a peace agreement between us and the Palestinians.

I meant precisely what I said. I'll make every possible effort. And in order to examine it carefully and seriously, I will certainly meet with the elected President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas. We haven't yet decided about the timing. It will be in the near future. And I will do everything that I can in order to help create the necessary circumstances for such negotiations to take place, providing, of course, that the Palestinian partner will have to not just to make a public commitment, but to be able to deliver on the basic requirements of the road map and the Quartet decisions, namely to recognize the state of Israel and its right to exist as a Jewish state, to unarm the terrorist organizations, and to implement all the obligations of the agreement signed between the state of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

So we will make an effort. And I say time and again that we accept the sincerity of Mahmoud Abbas as the elected President of the Palestinian Authority. He is genuine, he is sincere, and we hope that he will have the power to be able to meet the requirements necessary for negotiations between us and the Palestinians. How soon it will be? The sooner the better. I don't want to prejudge it at this point. I think it's too early. And I didn't come with a timetable to meet with the President of the United States.

We shared our observations. I entirely agree with the vision of the President as it was outlined so brilliantly in the famous speech in June of 2002, which really set the course for all the developments that took place in the Middle East since then and created the possibility for ultimately the disengagement, which was a turning point in the history of the Middle East. And we are grateful to the President for the courage that he manifested then in presenting this outline and in being the first to support the disengagement, and carry on in spite of the difficulties and the skepticism and the question marks posed by different countries at the beginning. Most of them joined in later.

So we are anxious to have negotiations. And we will look and find every possible avenue to help establish a process of negotiations on the basis of these conditions. However, as I said, we will not wait indefinitely. If we will reach the conclusion that in spite of all these efforts, it is impossible to implement the principles of the road map through a negotiating process, we'll look for other ways to implement these principles, and to ultimately create a situation where there are secured borders for the state of Israel, with the population centers in the territories as part of a state of Israel, and with a contiguous territory that will allow the Palestinians to establish their own Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel. And hopefully, this is something that will happen within the next three to four years.

Again, I am grateful to the President for the efforts that he was making and for his willingness to examine together with me these new ideas, -- as he called them, bold ideas -- in the event that all other options will not be possible.

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

I am the Associate Director of the American Jewish Congress in Los Angeles. I spent three days at UC Irvine to witness the hate speech and gross misrepresentations of Jews, Israeli's Americans and Zionists at the "Holocaust in the Holyland 'week. I listened to the horrific lies of Norman Finkelstein under the guise of him being historian. I heard Malik Ali talk about extermination of Jews in Israel, short of saying kill, he used terms like "eliminate" when discussing Israel. I was followed by the campus police, and watched by the administration, so that I could not openly talk out, or disagee with a blatant lies made about history, or Jews. At the end of Malik Ali's hate speech, I finally had enough, and trying to get him to publically say it was about "the Jews" and not "those people" I was shouted down by repeated "Allah Akbars" and laughter.

I understood that day,standing alone what it felt like to be a Jew in pre-war Germany. I understood how fearful the hostages in Iran must have felt when the US Embassy was taken over. And I understand the double standards that occur when it comes to the UCI administration in taking a postion to facilitate peaceful diaglogue. I witnessed the supression of my freedom of speech for three days, until the very end when I could no longer stay silent. I listened to three long tedious hours of Norman Finkelstein, who mocks the Holocaust Business, however has made a living on ...guess what, The Holocaust business! His denial of the true implications of mass murder committed by the Nazi's is overshadowed by his hatared of being a Jew himself.

I heard about "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" however, no one could answer why the Palestinian population has quadrupled since 1948. I heard statements like "Zionism is not Judaism" by "Rabbi's" from Nutrei Karta who get paid to say what they do by the Saudi government after the death of their buddy Yassar Arafat. They recently met with Iran's leader (go to http://www.memri.org/ to see the clip) and called for the end to the Jewish State and Zionism. Just think, the MSU found a "sect" of Jews who number about 2000 more or less, to speak the "truth" for over 15,000,000 people. There will always be useful idiots to speak for the enemy, and the MSU has found a coterie that they parade around from campus to campus, with the same tired speechs from last year. In fact, I can even quote Finkelstein's speech verbatum. You would think that for the $5,000.00 fee , hotel, food and airfare, that Norman could at least come up with another speeech, leaving out the "Ma, I found it I found it" lines in reference to his finding flaws with Joan Peters book "In Time Immorial". This speech is neither cute or funny. It is just feeding fuel to a crowd thirsty to hear a Jew talking about Jews in ways which they cannot.

As for Malik ALi, I just wonder what the University would do, if I substituted the words "Jew" and "Zionist" for "black" and "colored". I would be attacked, called a racist, and the NAACP and ACLU would be all over me. However, it is "de riguer" to say outwardly things about Jews that were once said in private. I find the use of the freedoms of a democracy based on Judeo Christian values to perpetrate hatred under the guise of freedom... absurd.

I was with an associate and after I was escorted from the area behind the "apartheid wall" to sing with the supporters of Israel, we chatted with one of the campus police. My friend asked if this was a rough event to cover, as it was contentious and very hostile. The campus officer said, "Protecting the MSU is easier than than the Campus Republicans". How very sad. Conservatives on this campus are treated with more hatred than students who wear Kyffia's and support Iran and it's daily calls to eliminate not only Israel, but the United States of America. I wonder who these student's loyalty belongs to. Iran? Syria? North Korea? Is this the new radical chic?

I am saddened not only by the lack of historical context, education and truth that these students have especially in light of their being students at a very prestigious university. I am saddened by the loss of innocence, the lack of respect, and the fall, as they say, of western civilization.

I hold the administration of this University responsible, especially Manuel Gomez, Sally Peterson and the new Chancellor. After repeated attempts to make our position heard, clearly it was just a token to listen to us, appeasement, and a lack of respect for Jews and Israeli's worldwide. Their lack of actions spoke louder than the amplified "Allah Akbars" and their support of hate is something I never learned in History 101. Shame on the University, and shame on the parents and religious centers that preach hate and death. And to top this off, we get to see the Green HAMAS shehada scarfs all over again at graduation. I guess after all these years, we have truly neither made any movement towards peace, reconcillation, and respect for others who may not share the same values. This is truly very very sad.

Share It

About Me

American born, my wife and I moved to Israel in 1970. We have lived at Shiloh together with our family since 1981. I was in the Betar youth movement in the US and UK. I have worked as a political aide to Members of Knesset and a Minister during 1981-1994, lectured at the Academy for National Studies 1977-1994, was director of Israel's Media Watch 1995-2000 and currently, I work at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem. I was a guest media columnist on media affairs for The Jerusalem Post, op-ed contributor to various journals and for six years had a weekly media show on Arutz 7 radio. I serve as an unofficial spokesperson for the Jewish Communities in Judea & Samaria.